Talk:Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John M Wolfson, it's nice to see you again. I hope to look at this soon. Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Sorry for the delay, I forgot about this.

Infobox:

• See text before 1924 - Given that the infobox is supposed to summarize the text, I think we should mention the former companies in the infobox instead. E.g. "West Side Construction Company (1895–1896), Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad (1896–1897)..."
  • I feel that that would be too lengthy and nuanced for an infobox, hence the referral to the text. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I just suggested this because people might not want to skim the text, but I suppose that including many names in an infobox can overburden it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you add coordinates for this station? It would be very helpful. Even if you do not know the exact location, merely linking the coordinate location of 1718 W. Grand Avenue would aid greatly.
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• and began service in 1895. - You could mention the exact date here. Later on in the lead, you mention the exact date of closure.
  • Done, even added a little mapframe for the reader. (Sure, the coordinates are way overprecise in Wikidata, but I got them from Google Maps, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A subway had been planned since the late 1930s to reach downtown - Downtown being the Chicago Loop? If so, the Loop could probably be linked.
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This subway was originally intended to supplement the old elevated Logan Square branch rather than replace it, but the newfangled CTA sought to simplify its routing and saw no need for the old branch's continued existence. - The stricken-through part is unnecessary, being implied by the rest of the sentence.
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The subway opened on February 25, 1951, whereupon Grand and its adjacent stations were closed; the subway has its own station on Grand Avenue. - I'd move the bit about the subway having its own station on Grand Avenue so that it's earlier in the sentence. E.g. "The subway opened on February 25, 1951, with its own station on Grand Avenue; subsequently, Grand and its adjacent stations were closed".
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• non-revenue service - I understand what you mean, but you may need to clarify this for non-railfans, i.e. the trackage was used to connect the Douglas branch to the Loop even though it didn't see passenger service.
  • The Featured Lake Street Transfer station uses "non-revenue" without explanation, I think it will be fine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine with me. I am just saying that non-railfans may not understand, but personally I don't think it's a big issue either. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For most of its existence it was served by a streetcar route that reached Navy Pier - The station was also served by a streetcar, you mean?
  • Better phrasing adopted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over the rest of the article in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History:

• Unlike the competing South Side and Lake Street Elevateds, the Metropolitan never used steam traction; although it had originally intended to, and indeed had built much of its structure under the assumption that locomotives would be used,[7] it decided in May 1894 to have electrified tracks instead,[8] making it upon its opening the first electric elevated railroad in the United States.[9] This is a pretty long sentence, even with the semicolon. Also, in the latter half of the sentence, you use "it" multiple times in close succession, e.g. making it upon its opening.
  • Slightly shortened and fixed excessive "it"s. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• powered on in April 1895 - "On in" sounds awkward, but I don't have a good solution for this, other than "powered on during..."
  • "Given power"? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• formally merged into the single Chicago Rapid Transit Company (CRT) in 1924, which assumed operations on January 9; - Is there a distinction between the formal merge and the CRT's assumption of operations? If not, I suggest condensing it into something like "formally merged into the single Chicago Rapid Transit Company (CRT), which assumed operations on January 9, 1924".
  • Done. 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Damen Tower serving the Humboldt Park branch divergence was rebuilt with the expectation that it also would switch trains between the subway and the elevated - I'd add commas before and after "serving the Humboldt Park branch divergence".
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• and as late as 1949 commuters were promised such a setup that would have preserved the old Logan Square trackage. - Perhaps this sentence should be split as well.
  • Tweaked otherwise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• After the war ended, work resumed on the Dearborn subway and it opened at the midnight beginning Sunday, February 25, 1951.[26] - At the midnight? (Funnily, that date is my birthday.)
  • Yes, similar to "at 2 in the morning," etc. (Also, happy really early birthday! :P) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see. And thanks, I appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• trains in the subway stopped at its southern terminus at LaSalle and turn back - Since it is implied that trains stop at their termini (both in terms of making station stops and in terms of ending there), I'd remove the redundancy and say "trains in the subway turned back at its southern terminus at LaSalle".
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• complaints from riders no longer given a direct trip to the Near West Side, - I'd suggest rephrasing that as "complaints from riders who no longer had a direct trip...", but this is optional, as the current phrasing is not grammatically incorrect.
  • Eh, I'll err on the side of keeping it, even though it's a coin flip of sorts for me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Station details:

• Grand had two wooden side platforms and a station house at street level. - This makes it sound like the platforms were also at street level. I suggest "Grand had two wooden side platforms and a street-level station house".

• Done.

• Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak - Related to the Spanish flu?

• Probably, but Moffat never explicitly says as much.

• they would replace them - I'd clarify that buses replaced streetcars, as something like "they replaced them" is grammatically awkward.

• Just did "and replaced them", see no awkwardness.

That's it for prose. I'll check references next. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay, I thought you were checking other parts of the prose. 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine. Sorry it's taking me so long, I should be done by Monday. Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment about chicago-l.org: I see you explained this source elsewhere, but do we know where Garfield got his information? If so, it may help to cite the source directly, but if not, then no worries. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield has a bibliography of sources, but he probably largely deduces what I haven't cited elsewhere from synthesis and/or such primary sources as photographs, or non-FUTON/easily-accessible sources such as internal CTA documents (I personally had to wait several weeks after a FOIA request to CTA for the ridership sources, for example). Either way, it's an adequate source for the nooks and crannies of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

• 2 (Moffat, Bruce G. (1995). The "L": The Development of Chicago's Rapid Transit System, 1888–1932. Chicago: Central Electric Railfans' Association.) - Will have to assume good faith for this source, as this is offline.
• 18 (Chicago Transit Authority (October 1, 1947). "Today – they're all yours!". Chicago Tribune. Vol. 106, no. 235. p. 8.) - No issues. It's a shame that an advertisement is the best source for this fact, though.
• 21 ("Entries in Loop at Every Block; Begin Work Dec. 15". Chicago Tribune. Vol. 97, no. 245. October 13, 1938. pp. 1–2. ) - No issues with verification, but I recommend clipping the next page.

• Not done, due to slight inconvenience, the fact that the first page is sufficient for verification, and in the spirit of copyrighted work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the issue is inconvenience, I have clipped the page. I don't think copyright is a big issue here - otherwise any URL to newspapers.com would be forbidden. However, this is a recommendation, not a requirement, and there are no issues with this reference specifically. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, but I thought such newspapers were available due to fair use, which would be compromised with excessive sharing. No complaints on my end, though, thanks for the clip! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 30 (Chicago Transit Authority (1951). Seventh Annual Report of Chicago Transit Board for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 1951 - p. 1) - No issues.
• 33 ("Announces Congress Subway Plan System for Trains". Berwyn Life. Vol. 26, no. 70. Berwyn, Illinois. June 11, 1958. p. 5.) - This supports most of the sentence (This connection was used until the Congress Line was completed in 1958, after which the Douglas branch connected directly with it to use the Dearborn Street subway to go downtown, creating the "West-Northwest Route"), but I think only the Chicago Tribune ref supports the 1992 rebranding as the Blue Line.

• I've moved the reference, even if it makes it slightly more awkward. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 44 (Lind, Alan R. (1974). Chicago Surface Lines: An Illustrated History. Park Forest, Illinois: Transport History Press.) - Will have to assume good faith for this source, as this is offline.

– Epicgenius (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues with copyright.
• Images are both licensed properly.
• Both images have alt text, so there are no issues in this regard. Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I've had limited internet access over the last several days, due to an internet outage in my neighborhood, but I will get back to this review as soon as I can. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]